Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] Move init_skiplist() outside of fsck

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>
Cc: "Barret Rhoden" <brho@google.com>,
	git@vger.kernel.org, "David Kastrup" <dak@gnu.org>,
	"Jeff King" <peff@peff.net>, "Jeff Smith" <whydoubt@gmail.com>,
	"Johannes Schindelin" <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>,
	"René Scharfe" <l.s.r@web.de>,
	"Stefan Beller" <stefanbeller@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] Move init_skiplist() outside of fsck
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 09:36:32 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqzhrxlvfj.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87k1j247ui.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> (=?utf-8?B?IsOGdmFyIEFy?= =?utf-8?B?bmZqw7Zyw7A=?= Bjarmason"'s message of "Fri, 18 Jan 2019 10:45:41 +0100")

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thu, Jan 17 2019, Barret Rhoden wrote:
>
>> -		die("Could not open skip list: %s", path);
>> [...]
>> +		die("Could not open skip list: %s", path);
>
> You're just moving this around, but now that this has two uses let's say
> "Could not open SHA-1 list; %s" or something like that.
>
>> +			die("Invalid SHA-1: %s", sb.buf);
>
> Unlike Johannes I think it's fine to leave this. This file-format is
> SHA-1 only now. We can cross the bridge of making it (and others)
> SHA-256 somehow when we come to that, whether that'll be allowing
> variable width or a different file.

I tend to agree.  The Documentation/glossary-contents.txt makes it
clear that "object name" is the most formal term to use here, with
synonyms like "object identifier" and much less formal "hash".  For
now, "SHA-1" is good enough, even though "object name" is acceptable
if we really want to future-proof.  But I would suspect that people
would colloquially keep saying Shaah-one even when we start using
different hash function(s), so such a future-proofing may not be
worth it ;-)